FTC seeks public’s input on ‘un-American’ and ‘potentially illegal’ Big Tech censorship — including ‘shadow banning’

The Federal Trade Commission will put Big Tech firms like Google and Facebook parent Meta under the microscope over the potential censorship of users and has asked for the public’s input, the agency announced on Thursday.

The FTC, led by President Trump’s newly appointed chairman Andrew Ferguson, invited people to submit comments on the the agency’s website through May 21 — describing Big Tech censorship as “not just un-American” but “potentially illegal.”

“Tech firms should not be bullying their users,” Ferguson said in a statement. “This inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.”

Among the concerns flagged by Ferguson is the practice of “shadow banning,” noting that companies “can implement confusing or unpredictable internal procedures that cut users off, sometimes with no ability to appeal the decision.”

Users of social media apps and other tech platforms who have faced shadow bans or had their accounts demonetized or censored were specifically “encouraged to share their comments” in the FTC’s request.

“Chair Ferguson is opening the black box that is the tech censorship regime, allowing regular Americans who have been on the wrong end of these suppression efforts to speak up and share their experiences,” said Nathan Leamer, CEO of Fixed Gear Strategies.

“I’m hopeful this shines a light on the unfair and un-American practices of some of these internet gatekeepers,” Leamer added.

The FTC action comes as Big Tech executives, including Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook, scramble to cozy up to the Trump administration.

The tech billionaires and several others have personally met with Trump since his election win.

Many major companies, including Meta, have slashed internal DEI programs in lockstep with similar moves by the Trump administration within the federal government. Zuckerberg also ordered an end to Meta’s fact-checking efforts.

The agency’s announcement did not mention any company by name – but broadly pointed to firms “that provide social media, video sharing, photo sharing, ride sharing, event planning, internal or external communications, or other internet services.”

The FTC’s move signals that Big Tech firms will face intense scrutiny on Ferguson’s watch, added Evan Swarztrauber, a former FCC policy adviser and principal at CorePoint Strategies.

“These companies have massive power of the information ecosystem – what people see, what people don’t see, and who gets heard and not heard,” Swarztrauber said. “Given the market power of Big Tech firms, it is only appropriate for the FTC to invite the public to weigh in on something as critical as online free expression.”

Republicans have long accused Big Tech of suppressing online speech, including The Post’s exclusive reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The charm offensive by tech titans marked a major change in the relationship between the industry and Trump – who had previously accused Google and Meta of election interference and censorship on several occasions.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that Meta faced pressure from the Biden administration to censors online posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic.the censorship during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” last month

Trump said Ferguson has “a proven record of standing up to Big Tech censorship” when nominating him for the top role in December.

Earlier that same month, Ferguson, then an FTC commissioner, called for the agency to investigate “collusion” and bias in the digital advertising agency – and said that any ad “cartels” found to have promoted censorship should be broken up.

He has been critical of groups like the now-defunct Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and NewsGuard for their role in stifling the flow of advertising dollars to outlets who are arbitrarily deemed risks to “brand safety.” 

Ferguson has suggested such groups could be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.